Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreThe State of Kerala acquired about 30 acres of land in Kottayam in 1980 for a multipurpose development scheme, including roughly 4.30 acres owned by the original appellant (who died during the case, with his legal heirs continuing the appeal). After multiple rounds of valuation, first by the Land Acquisition Officer, then a Reference Court, then a remand and re-determination, the Kerala High Court ultimately fixed the compensation for the "wet land" portion at a lower rate than what other landowners whose land was acquired in the very same scheme had received for comparable wet land. The landowner's heirs appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing they deserved parity with those other landowners.
The Supreme Court accepted the appellants' argument that identical land, acquired in the same proceedings, should attract the same compensation rate, noting that the State could not dispute this factual parity and had not even challenged the earlier, final determination awarded to other landowners for their wet land. The Court restored the higher rate of Rs. 2,000 per cent for the appellants' wet land (in place of the Rs. 500 per cent fixed by the High Court), finding this reflected the correct market value at the time of acquisition, while leaving the rates for dry land and "chira" land undisturbed since no challenge was pressed on those. The appeals were allowed in part and the compensation award was modified accordingly.
Landowners whose property is acquired under the same scheme and notification are entitled to equal treatment in compensation for comparable land: courts will correct a lower valuation where similarly situated landowners were already paid a higher, unchallenged rate for the same type of land.
